Hysteropexy. A review.

Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Minerva ginecologica 01/2009; 60(6):509-28.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Uterine prolapse is a common problem in women that negatively affects one's quality of life. Surgical treatment commonly involves a hysterectomy followed by vaginal vault suspension of some type. Hysteropexy to treat uterovaginal prolapse has a long history dating back to the 1800s and has gone through many changes. Recent literature describes vaginal, open abdominal and laparoscopic approaches. Vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy is well-supported by the scientific literature. Favorable postoperative outcomes range from 62-100% and additional data show improved quality of life and sexual function. Anatomic outcomes appear to be comparable to vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament vault suspension. Additionally, encouraging outcomes following pregnancy have been described. The sacrohysteropexy, performed through a laparotomy incision or laparoscopically, also has favorable data, with cure rates ranging from 91-100%. Studies supporting this procedure also describe improvements in quality of life and sexual function. Complications related to these procedures are similar to those described after vaginal vault suspension using comparable techniques, although most studies report shorter operative times and less blood loss. At the present time, hysteropexy, either transvaginal or abdominal, seems to be a safe procedure with acceptable results in women who desire uterine preservation. As these procedures gain popularity and data become available, questions related to patient selection, surgical durability, outcomes following pregnancy, and complications related to risk of uterine pathology will likely be answered.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate attitudes toward hysterectomy in women seeking care for pelvic organ prolapse. Two hundred twenty women referred for evaluation of prolapse without evidence of previous hysterectomy were surveyed with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory; the Control Preferences Scale; and questions regarding patients' perception of the impact of hysterectomy on health, social life, and emotional well-being. Additional items presented hypothetical scenarios. Surveys were distributed in small batches until 100 responses were obtained from patients who met inclusion criteria. One hundred women with an intact uterus responded. Sixty percent indicated they would decline hysterectomy if presented with an equally efficacious alternative to a hysterectomy-based prolapse repair. The doctor's opinion, risk of surgical complications, and risk of malignancy were the most important factors in surgical decision making. Many women with prolapse prefer to retain their uterus at the time of surgery in the absence of a substantial benefit to hysterectomy. These findings should provide further impetus to investigate the efficacy of uterine-sparing procedures to help women make informed decisions regarding prolapse surgery.
    Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery 01/2013; 19(2):103-9. DOI:10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Attitudes to sexuality and the psychological value of reproductive organs have changed in Western countries over the last few decades. Nevertheless, repair of pelvic support defects with concomitant hysterectomy is still considered the standard treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Over the last 10 years, however, interest has been growing in uterus-sparing surgery, which can be divided into vaginal, abdominal, and laparoscopic procedures. The majority of studies on uterus-sparing surgery, with the exception of abdominal techniques, report few cases with short follow-up. Sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most studied vaginal technique for uterus preservation and favorable results have been demonstrated, although the majority of studies are flawed by selection and information bias, short follow-up and lack of adequate control groups. Abdominal and laparoscopic procedures are promising, providing similar functional and anatomical results to hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Consensus is growing that the uterus can be preserved at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery in appropriately selected women who desire it. The results of comparison trials and prospective studies confirm that uterus-sparing surgery is feasible and is associated with similar outcomes to hysterectomy, as well as shorter operating times. Surgeons should be ready to respond to the wishes of female patients who want to preserve vaginal function and the uterus.
    Nature Reviews Urology 11/2010; 7(11):626-33. DOI:10.1038/nrurol.2010.164 · 4.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Total Prolift(®) is a pelvic floor repair system that is performed transvaginally and can be carried out with or without the uterus in situ. To compare surgical outcomes following total Prolift colpopexy (TPC) and total Prolift hysteropexy (TPH). This was a retrospective cohort study of women that underwent TPC (n = 65) or TPH (n = 24). Outcomes were compared between groups using Student's t-test, ANCOVA and Fisher's exact tests (P ≤ 0.05). There were no significant differences between TPC and TPH for all peri-operative variables. Patients were followed 6-12 months after surgery. Post-operatively, TPC patients had significantly higher pelvic organ prolapse-quantification (POP-Q) point C measurements (P = 0.05); however, all other POP-Q measurements were similar, including POP-Q apical stage of prolapse, with 99% in the TPC group and 92% in the TPH group at stage I or less. Post-operative mesh erosion, prolapse symptoms, surgical satisfaction, sexual activity and dyspareunia rates did not significantly differ between groups. This study showed that TPC and TPH have similar surgical outcomes, except for vaginal vault measurements reflected by POP-Q point C.
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 02/2011; 51(1):61-6. DOI:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01258.x · 1.62 Impact Factor
Show more